Should God always be followed, etc.

[Jeff250]

This is a continuation of the topic from the abortion thread.

Why should we follow God's values if they can be contrary to our and our loved one's ultimate good? Killing somebody before they backslide into Islam would be one example. You've suggested that this would just for whatever reason be impossible. Well whatever, I can grant this to you because it's a rather extreme example but also because I can give you a more generic example. What if I had to sin to save my friend who would otherwise not be saved? In this case, why should I choose God's values that would not have the best interests of my friend in mind when I could choose other values that might save my friend from eternal anguish? (Assume that this discrepancy is a one time deal and that in every other respect I agree with God's values such that it in no way affects my own salvation or significantly affects my relationship with God.) What is it about God's values that I should abandon my friend's ultimate good to follow them?

I think that I could also create another example involving myself. Say that I had to sin to be saved (and assume that I somehow knew it so I could make this decision consciously). Surely this situation is imaginable, isn't it? Maybe I had to steal a Bible from a shop before I died or something along that nature? If such a scenario is possible, then I can ask an even more powerful question than before. What is it about God's values that I should follow them at the cost of damning myself to hell?

Also as an aside: You've said that God has values, which is reasonable, but from where would you say does God get his values? Would you view God as more of a mediator, as a reliable source to know what is good/bad/etc.? And that sins are somehow against this value system and not God? I don't think I'm clearly seeing the picture that you're trying to paint here. I've always been under the impression that God was the value system, not that God has values outside of himself.

[CUDA]

Why should we follow God's values if they can be contrary to our and our loved one's ultimate good? Killing somebody before they backslide into Islam would be one example.

first off how do we know what is contrary to our ultimate good, we are linear and cannot see the future or what effects our actions have on others. God can. besides how far do you take it do you kill them before they stray from following God or do you kill them before they can sin? and by killing someone before they backslide, have you not then assumed the role of God thinking you know whats best? besides God want us to chose to follow him. free will.

You've said that God has values

God IS values, he is the standard that we set our value system upon

[Kilarin]

I've always been under the impression that God was the value system, not that God has values outside of himself.

If values existed outside God, then something more powerful than God would have had to establish them. But God's "values" are not arbitrary. God is his own goodness. Have you ever read Aquinas?

Say that I had to sin to be saved (and assume that I somehow knew it so I could make this decision consciously).

The mistake here is in thinking that you are saved by "what you do". While many Christians believe this way and act this way, it's not what the Bible teaches.

Rom 3:20,24 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
...
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

NOTHING we can do of ourselves is good enough, because:
1Sam 16:7 for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Good behavior on the outside, no matter HOW good it is, isn't good enough. God wants people who are changed on the INSIDE. And that kind of change, you can't do by yourself. It's like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. We are sinful by nature, and in order to change that, something from OUTSIDE our nature must reach in and change us.

Salvation goes WAY beyond changing our outward behavior, its about changing who we are. Inviting Christ into your heart is like inviting your mother-in-law over to your house. You KNOW she is going to mess with stuff! There can be no namby-pamby mouthing a few words of acceptance to Jesus and thinking that now you can go back to living the way you want to. Accepting Christ means allowing him to change the very core of your being so that you outward behavior will change as a REFLECTION of the changes in your inner self. Instead of gritting your teeth and avoiding beating your spouse only on the outside, God promises to gradually (as quickly as you will let him) change you on the INSIDE so that you no longer even WANT to beat your spouse.

And this is why your scenario where you "had to sin in order to be saved" simply doesn't work. Salvation between God and Man is much more like a marriage than a school room. Sinning in order to get to heaven is like cheating on your spouse in order to save your marriage. Now there ARE certainly cases where a couple has gone through a terrible time and found the inspiration to rebuild their marriage afterwards, just like God has managed to find ways to pull people out of terrible sin and into salvation, but the sin, or the cheating, were never NECESSARY. If both sides had been willing to work together, they could have made it work MUCH better without going through the hardships of betrayal. And in the God-Mankind relationship, God is ALWAYS ready and willing to work with us. The only hesitation is on our side.

Sin is not things you do, sin is living a life apart from Christ, and all that results from that seperation.

God may use sin, but it is NEVER necessary.

[Lothar]

Jeff, your whole line of questioning is based on a string of misconceptions about God, sin, and salvation.

You keep asking, essentially, \"what if I had to go against God to be saved?\" It simply doesn't work that way. You can't force God to save you (or your friend) by committing a well-timed sin.

You also keep asking, essentially, \"why should I follow God if doing so would make me miss my chance to be saved?\" Your timeline is backwards. You should follow God as a result of being saved -- as a result of falling in love with Him. You don't follow first and then get saved because you followed; you get saved as God transforms you, and then you follow Him. If you don't love Him and haven't been saved by Him, then you have no reason to share His values or follow Him (and sharing the rest of His values outside of \"loving God\" is worthless.) There is no reason to follow God if you don't love Him.

If you're not already saved, there's no overriding reason to avoid stealing Bibles -- there's just your own philosophical reasons and your fear of the law. And if you are saved and think you have to steal a Bible in order to help a friend get saved, then what you've set up is competing values: on the one hand, there's the value of \"property\" and on the other is the value of \"love\". The best thing to do is to try to preserve/uphold/enhance both values, but if you can't figure out how to treat both perfectly, then you make a tradeoff between them. I would not call that a sin -- look at God's treatment of Rahab for lying!

Your scenario goes something like this: you can live essentially sinless, but then have an opportunity to commit a single sin that (due to random chance or whatever) happens to make it so that you'll be saved. So you ask, should you commit that sin? If it worked that way, then of course! But it doesn't work that way.

In reality, it's more like this: your life itself simply *is* sin because you're living apart from God and don't love Him, REGARDLESS of how closely your behavior or values match God's values. At this point, you should live however you want to. At some point, you may encounter God and He'll transform you, and you'll fall deeply in love with Him and be saved. Then you live the rest of your life as well as you can according to His values.

(This is way different from the stuff they teach first-graders in Sunday School. Yet another reason why I think Sunday School is often one of the worst things that can happen to a kid.)

[Lothar]

From the other thread:

I don't think it's as fundamentally flawed as you maintain, especially when held against popular (although not necessarily correct) Christian belief

It's not fundamentally flawed when held against popular Christian belief.

Rather, it's based on fundamentally flawed popular Christian belief.

In other words, it's a great illustration of how completely flawed the "pop culture" view of salvation is.

[Jeff250]

You also keep asking, essentially, "why should I follow God if doing so would make me miss my chance to be saved?" Your timeline is backwards. You should follow God as a result of being saved -- as a result of falling in love with Him. You don't follow first and then get saved because you followed; you get saved as God transforms you, and then you follow Him. If you don't love Him and haven't been saved by Him, then you have no reason to share His values or follow Him (and sharing the rest of His values outside of "loving God" is worthless.) There is no reason to follow God if you don't love Him.

It seems like you're downplaying or even mooting the unbeliever's responsibility to follow God's values. If this is so, the best thing an unbeliever can do for himself then is do whatever it takes, whether in accordance with God's values or not, to become saved and up until he becomes saved?

Would you consider loving God in itself a value?

[CUDA]

Would you consider loving God in itself a value?

Matthew 22 35-40
One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
\"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?\"
And He said to him, \" YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
\"This is the great and foremost commandment.
\"The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
\"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.\"

the best thing an unbeliever can do for himself then is do whatever it takes,

you cannot earn your salvation, it is a free gift that only needs to be accepted

[Lothar]

If this is so, the best thing an unbeliever can do for himself then is do whatever it takes, whether in accordance with God's values or not, to become saved and up until he becomes saved?

You're still assuming that the unbeliever can do something to make himself saved. You're still assuming he can do "whatever it takes" to be saved. That's not the way it works. You don't get saved because you did the magic thing that makes you saved. You don't get saved because you did "whatever it takes". You get saved because God decides to save you.

The Bible often uses the analogy of marriage -- as if God is a great king, and each of us is some peasant girl who he falls in love with and who falls in love with him. The peasant girl can't do anything to make the king marry her; it's his decision. She can accept or decline, but it's his choice to offer. It doesn't matter whether or not she previously believed the same things the king believed, or whether she previously did her best to serve the king or not, before they fell in love. It only matters that they fell in love. Everything before then is moot.

Living according to God's values* is important (because God's values are *right*), but unbelievers following them have no advantage over unbelievers not following them in terms of salvation. And if you don't love God and you don't already agree with His values, there's no particular reason I can give you to follow them.

* I did say in my previous post that "loving God" is one of God's values.

[Top Gun]

Jeff, I'm going to take a bit of a different approach to this. Everyone else here has pretty much stated that salvation isn't really based on what you do; it's based on a deeper change than that. I'll agree with this; faith in God and adherence to what God holds as right goes much deeper than just playing lip service by helping the poor. Without that love behind it, there is nothing. However, by the same token, I also believe that living a good life goes right along with that; one who does love God will live such a life, for if they didn't, their supposed love of God would be nothing more than a sham. The two are joined together, just as Christ's two basic commands to "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" are joined together.

Why should we follow God's values if they can be contrary to our and our loved one's ultimate good? Killing somebody before they backslide into Islam would be one example. You've suggested that this would just for whatever reason be impossible. Well whatever, I can grant this to you because it's a rather extreme example but also because I can give you a more generic example. What if I had to sin to save my friend who would otherwise not be saved? In this case, why should I choose God's values that would not have the best interests of my friend in mind when I could choose other values that might save my friend from eternal anguish? (Assume that this discrepancy is a one time deal and that in every other respect I agree with God's values such that it in no way affects my own salvation or significantly affects my relationship with God.) What is it about God's values that I should abandon my friend's ultimate good to follow them?

I see some problems with your statement. God's values are never contrary to anyone's ultimate good; in fact, they are the ultimate good. I really don't see how the Islam example applies, either. As a Catholic, I do believe that someone who once accepted the divinity of Christ as the Son of God and then reneged on that is deciding to blind themself to the fullness of revelation, but would I murder someone to prevent them from doing so? Of course not! Despite the actual act being repugnant to God, doing so completely ignores the concept of free will. Someone can't be forced into loving God or having a relationship with Him; that's something they have to decide on their own. God extends that invitation to everyone, and it's a testament to our free will whether or not we choose to accept it. (I may differ with some other people in this thread on this point, but that's what I believe personally. I think that God acts in everyone's life, but everyone is also freely capable of rejecting that call.) Free will is God's greatest gift to us; it's the very thing that allows us to love Him as independent beings. It's really one and the same as the gift of our lives.

Besides all of that, do you think that Christians think that all Muslims are destined for hell? I'm sure there are those that feel that way, but I personally believe that there are many atheists who are destined for heaven. As has been said, God works in mysterious ways, and no one can say that any one person will be saved or not. We're just not capable of it. That is between that person and God. At any rate, there is no value of God's that you could break that would help your friend; in fact, it'd only be harming yourself. I'll go into this a little more below.

I think that I could also create another example involving myself. Say that I had to sin to be saved (and assume that I somehow knew it so I could make this decision consciously). Surely this situation is imaginable, isn't it? Maybe I had to steal a Bible from a shop before I died or something along that nature? If such a scenario is possible, then I can ask an even more powerful question than before. What is it about God's values that I should follow them at the cost of damning myself to hell?

That Bible example is interesting. Let me ask you this: how will stealing that Bible help your friend, or even yourself, attain salvation? The act of reading the Bible isn't what salvation is based on (although the Bible is obviously tremendously important in other ways). One can attain salvation without having ever read a word of the Bible; that's what I believe, at least. Once again, I'm not saying that stealing that Bible will condemn you to anything; if you truly felt that that was a necessary and right thing to do, I can't see how God would hold you responsible for the actual act of theft. However, as I said, that physical book isn't what determines salvation; it's answering God's call and opening a loving relationship with God, to the best of your own personal abilities. (That isn't to say that people don't find their way to God through reading the Bible; that's a completely different topic. As I said above, this also doesn't mean that an atheist cannot obtain salvation, but that's another, probably much more lengthy, discussion as well. )

I said I wanted to clarify something about breaking God's values. Let's use the murder scenario as an example. Suppose your friend was being held hostage, and you were forced to kill someone in order to save him. Would you see that as going against God's values? It's true that God values life, your friend's as much as his captors, and that God's commandments forbid murder. But, like all things, it's not so clear-cut as that. The people threatening your friend's life have already rejected God's value of life; your value of your friend's life is a fulfillment of that. Taking the life of another isn't an absolute sin; it depends on the circumstances. This doesn't have much to do with the whole topic of salvation, but it does illustrate that God's values aren't always a little set of easily-memorized rules. In this case, you're not going against what God values. I just wanted to make that distinction, in case you were thinking that a situation like this would be something damnable.

Also as an aside: You've said that God has values, which is reasonable, but from where would you say does God get his values? Would you view God as more of a mediator, as a reliable source to know what is good/bad/etc.? And that sins are somehow against this value system and not God? I don't think I'm clearly seeing the picture that you're trying to paint here. I've always been under the impression that God was the value system, not that God has values outside of himself.

As I said above, I consider God to be the one and only ultimate good. God is good; God is love; God is life. God does not get His values from any external source; those values are a poor human attempt to explain what God really is. The breaking of those values is a sin against God Himself, so in that repect, your last sentence is absolutely correct.

[Jeff250]

You're still assuming that the unbeliever can do something to make himself saved. You're still assuming he can do "whatever it takes" to be saved. That's not the way it works. You don't get saved because you did the magic thing that makes you saved. You don't get saved because you did "whatever it takes". You get saved because God decides to save you.

Are you saying then that there is nothing a person can do even to increase the probability of being saved or to put himself in a better position to be saved?

It seems like as long as any of these things are possible, it would be in our best interest to pursue a greater probability or to obtain a better position in whatever way possible.

Besides all of that, do you think that Christians think that all Muslims are destined for hell?

No, of course not. I've already replaced that example with a more generic one just to solve issues like that.

I see some problems with your statement. God's values are never contrary to anyone's ultimate good; in fact, they are the ultimate good.

That's the assumption that I was originally working under. Then Drakona responded with:

First, it is demonstrably not God's goal--or indeed any sort of greatest good--to maximize the number of people who get to heaven by any means.

I think it can be rephrased like this: A person's ultimate good on earth is to be saved, since there is no greater thing that they can personally achieve for themselves. God's ultimate good is not that everyone on earth should be saved (Drakona assures that this is demonstratable, and I tend to agree, otherwise everyone probably would be saved). Thus, God's ultimate good is not necessarily my ultimate good.

[CUDA]

Are you saying then that there is nothing a person can do even to increase the probability of being saved or to put himself in a better position to be saved?

yes there is nothing you can do to increase the probabilty of being saved.

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

you CANNOT earn your way to heaven, people tend to think why would God accept me I have so much wrong with me, I need to clean up my act before I come to him. that is the exact opposite approach they should take.

[Jeff250]

I think you're misunderstanding the question. I'm not talking about working one's way to heaven, unless you would consider something like the reading of John 3:16 to acquire the requisite knowledge to obtain salvation or praying to God to be saved as working one's way to heaven. Because then I am talking about that.

Lothar said that you don't get saved by doing the magic thing that works. I take this to mean the stereotypical \"asking Jesus into my heart\" routine and other things like it. I was asking Lothar if the pursuit of salvation is hopeless then, or if we can at the very least put ourselves into a better position to receive salvation from God.

[Duper]

Why do you think that God would \"trick\" you into eternal hell?

Thus, God's ultimate good is not necessarily my ultimate good.

What is, then, your ultimate good. why is this?

[Jeff250]

Regarding your first question, if you're quoting \"trick\" from somewhere, I'd like to see from where, because I don't recall ever talking about any sort of trickery, and I don't think that that accurately represents my position--it certainly doesn't represent my thoughts, so I can't answer it.

Regarding your second, when concerning an individual, I've been using greatest good to refer to specifically the greatest personal good that an individual can obtain in his or her earthly life, which is salvation. Why? Because if you have it, you get to go to heaven and spend eternity in bliss. Otherwise, you get to go to hell and have a blast there. When it comes to your personal well-being, it's the single variable that makes an infinite of difference.

[Kilarin]

I also believe that living a good life goes right along with that; one who does love God will live such a life, for if they didn't, their supposed love of God would be nothing more than a sham.

Amen. James says that Faith without works is dead. Not that it WILL DIE, but that it is ALREADY DEAD. If God isn't making positive changes in you and your behavior, you have lost contact with God.

You get saved because God decides to save you.

God extends that invitation to everyone, and it's a testament to our free will whether or not we choose to accept it.

Just to clarify, I seriously doubt if Lothar is a strict predestination Calvinist. (Correct me if I'm wrong there Lothar). So I don't think he would be in disagreement with Top Gun's excellent statement here.

Paul says:
Eph 1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinate us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

The word "predestined" is the greek word Proorizo, the number 1 translation of which is: " to predetermine, decide beforehand".

And we know from this text (among others)
1 Tim 2:4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
That Paul clearly believed God wanted ALL men to be saved. The best explanation of Paul's predestination comments then is that God Predestined ALL people for salvation. We can, however, choose to reject it.

Which leads us to:

A person's ultimate good on earth is to be saved, since there is no greater thing that they can personally achieve for themselves.

Actually, I agree that God disagrees with you. I stand with Drakona that God does not think getting people into Heaven is the most important thing. If He did, there wouldn't be any debate and there would never have been a fall.

FREE WILL is actually more important than salvation. That's why God lets us choose. It's BETTER for someone to have the choice, and be lost, then to be saved without a choice. The position seems at first confusing, but it's not really. God is Love, and love can not exist without a choice. Without the free will to reject heaven, heaven wouldn't really BE heaven.

[Jeff250]

Actually, I agree that God disagrees with you. I stand with Drakona that God does not think getting people into Heaven is the most important thing. If He did, there wouldn't be any debate and there would never have been a fall.

FREE WILL is actually more important than salvation. That's why God lets us choose. It's BETTER for someone to have the choice, and be lost, then to be saved without a choice.

But it's BEST for someone with free will to obtain salvation.

Which is why I still affirm that the greatest personal good that an individual can obtain in his or her earthly life is salvation. I mean we're assuming here that we all already have free will.

It'd be like saying that being alive is more important than having free will, since if you're not alive, you can't really have free will.

But I don't think that either of these things make a lot of sense when trying to answer the question, "What is the greatest personal good than an individual can obtain in his or her earthly life?" I think it's assumed just by asking the question and in the very definition of a person that we're talking about people who are alive and who have free will. These things are apart of our very nature. These aren't variables. We don't have to ask, should I obtain aliveness instead of free will? Should I obtain free will instead of salvation?

This is why I think that salvation is the greatest personal good that we can obtain on earth. The other things are outside the scope of the question.

It's BETTER for someone to have the choice, and be lost,

I think that responding to this is going to make us go offtopic, but can you really argue that somebody burning in hell wishing that they had never been created can be comforted by that? "Well hey, at least you still have your free will."

[Kilarin]

can you really argue that somebody burning in hell wishing that they had never been created can be comforted by that?

As I argued in THIS old post, I don't believe that the bible teaches that God tortures sinners for all eternity in Hell. It's a monstrous doctrine that has chased many people away from God. At the Judgment, the wicked are DESTROYED. And they are destroyed because they have CHOSEN to have nothing to do with God. Since God is maintaining their very existance, His final surrender to the will of the wicked, means withdrawing ALL of his presence from the wicked, which means the destruction of the wicked.

So no one is going to be suffering in Hell wishing they had never been created. Some will wish they did not exist, and God will grant them their wish.

But it's BEST for someone with free will to obtain salvation.

Absolutely. And God wants the same thing, for everyone to choose to be saved. He's not sitting back by a big chalk board seeing if he can put enough bad marks next to peoples names to keep them out. He's begging and pleading for everyone to come in. He's willing to stoop so low that He will even do all the work. He woo's, He gives us the first urge towards repentance. He converts, God does the work of changing us from sinners into saints. He does EVERYTHING except ACCEPT. He humbles Himself so far that he will let us, created beings, tell him NO.

And so, to bring this back directly to the topic, there can be no situation where you would have to go against Gods wishes in order to be saved. It is God's wish that EVERYONE be saved (1 Tim 2:4), and he will even go so far as to send his own Son to die, if that is what it takes. There is only one thing He will not do. He will not violate your own right to choose your final fate.

Oh, and as a sideline, I appreciate you starting this thread, I've been enjoying it!

[Jeff250]

I agree that God might, as you've said, "wish" that every single one of us be saved. But I think this is analogous to how we might wish to quit our jobs or quit school, etc. We might have these wishes, but they are trumped by a greater wish for a greater good, i.e. that we can earn money to sustain a reasonable quality of life or that we obtain an education. In the same sense, God wishing that we all be saved is trumped by some other greatest good (possibly free will among other values) such that God's greatest good is ultimately not that everyone be saved. Meanwhile, it still is our personal greatest good that, as people with free will, each of us does obtain salvation for his or her self, since this is best for our personal well-being.

Oh, and as a sideline, I appreciate you starting this thread, I've been enjoying it!

Me too, so let's hope that we can get out of here feeling the same way.

[Bet51987]

So no one is going to be suffering in Hell wishing they had never been created. Some will wish they did not exist, and God will grant them their wish.

I've been following this thread and wonder where the above statement came from. I've never come across that part and it kind of fits me. No sarcasm intended, I just would like to see where its written.

Bettina

[CUDA]

as people with free will, each of us does obtain salvation for his or her self,

again, you CANNOT earn your salvation

[Jeff250]

Then what's the significance of free will if anything we will has no impact on or makes no progress toward salvation?

[Kilarin]

what's the significance of free will if anything we will has no impact on or makes no progress toward salvation?

I think the argument here is primarily about semantics. When you use the word "Obtain", it makes those of us who believe strongly in salvation by faith nervous. If all you mean is that since we have free will, we can choose to accept or reject the salvation that is offered to us, then I think we are in agreement on this point.

no one is going to be suffering in Hell wishing they had never been created. Some will wish they did not exist, and God will grant them their wish.

I've been following this thread and wonder where the above statement came from. I've never come across that part and it kind of fits me. No sarcasm intended, I just would like to see where its written.

I'm sorry to hear you've been suffering from depression. Just remember that WE would certainly be upset if you ceased to exist.

The Bible does not teach that the Soul is immortal. Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Only God is immortal: 1Tim 6:15,16 ...the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality
The Bible teaches that at the Judgment, the wicked are destroyed. Not tortured for eternity, destroyed. Malc 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

I listed more text supporting this in this old post.
You can also read a fairly detailed study of the topic by going to the Amazing Facts site and clicking on the "Are The Dead Really Dead?" and "Is the Devil in Charge of Hell" studies.

Why on EARTH would a loving God torture his children for all eternity? What POSSIBLE good could it do? Thank goodness the Bible doesn't teach this horrible doctrine.

[Samuel Dravis]

Then what's the significance of free will if anything we will has no impact on or makes no progress toward salvation?

It gives you the ability to reject it.

[Duper]

Say that I had to sin to be saved (and assume that I somehow knew it so I could make this decision consciously).

That if I had to sin to save my friend who would otherwise not be saved? In this case, why should I choose God's values that would not have the best interests of my friend in mind when I could choose other values that might save my friend from eternal anguish?

This implies that God is puting you in an impossible position. This would be tricking you.
You are born as Sin, by nature. Everyone is.

I've been using greatest good to refer to specifically the greatest personal good that an individual can obtain in his or her earthly life, which is salvation.

But this is your idea of "good" and so it's fundimentally flawed. Where's someone else's salvation is concerned; it would never come at the expence of your salvation. Nor could it for that matter. Ultimately, the "burden" of salvation lies on the individual and the choice they make.

Otherwise, you get to go to hell and have a blast there.

I assume that this is being flippant? In hell, one is alone with thier misery. The notion that hell is going to be a private party for "sinners" is quite incorrect.

I agree that God might, as you've said, "wish" that every single one of us be saved. But I think this is analogous to how we might wish to quit our jobs or quit school, etc.

No it does not. God Desires that all men would come to Him. But as we have discussed in countless threads here, because of Free will, most will choose not that path. People like yourself and Betinna. God, Himself says that the heart of man is evil, that they/we prefer darkness so that what they/we do will not be seen. Chist said that there are few that will escape hell, a meare fraction.

The Lord desires relationship... marrage, if you can accept it. So naturally, you would Want to follow His instruction. Your preception of God's "ultimate good" seems very scewed. God's "ultimate good" is Perfect and without flaw and thus is in your favor. Anyone else telling you differently than this is lying; and it sounds as though you have believed this lie.

God's intent for us can be described like this.
A rich man set up a college fund for his new born child that will completely cover all expenses to whatever school the child desires to attend when that time comes. One stipulation is attached, that if the child chooses not to attend college, the trust will be given to someone else that does.

Likewise, God has made a way to spend eternity with Him. But if we "opt-out", we get nothing. It is His plan that we attend (receive salvation), but ultimately it is our choice.

[Jeff250]

I think the argument here is primarily about semantics. When you use the word "Obtain", it makes those of us who believe strongly in salvation by faith nervous. If all you mean is that since we have free will, we can choose to accept or reject the salvation that is offered to us, then I think we are in agreement on this point.

Yes and no. I am suggesting that there are conditions that have to be met before a person can accept salvation, but hear me out, because it's nothing like "earning" salvation. Consider a person that was created fully grown with full reasoning ability but no knowledge. You can consider this an "Adam" figure if you'd like, except he wakes up in a corn field without any explicit knowledge of God, etc. Before he can obtain salvation, he's going to have to read a Bible or, if you really want to stretch it, wait around a while and eventually infer it from nature. In other words, through whatever means, he would need to come to the realization and obtain the knowledge that there is a salvation to accept before he can accept it. Would you agree with this?

[Kilarin]

Before he can obtain salvation, he's going to have to read a Bible or, if you really want to stretch it, wait around a while and eventually infer it from nature

Not a stretch at all:
Ro 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

he would need to come to the realization and obtain the knowledge that there is a salvation to accept before he can accept it.

As Lothar has pointed out recently, (in the abortion thread I think), we simply are not TOLD what happens to people who die before the "age of accountability". And thats the closest REAL analogy I can come to for you fictional scenario. A man created with knowledge, but no experience, would, I suppose, need time to adjust to his universe, but the exact religious implications are beyond me. It's not a scenario that has ever happened (to my knowledge) and even if it had, God very rarely tells us "Someone elses story".

God makes himself known to us through three means:
1: Internal revelation: The reason and conscience built into each of us.
2: External revelation: The works of creation
3: Special revelation: Scripture, visions, etc.

Anyone who has a complete and functioning brain has the first one.
Anyone not locked in a basement from birth has the Second.
So its safe to say that ALMOST everyone has the first two means of revelation available to them. What happens to individuals born with severely damaged brains or who were locked in basements? We don't know for certain. We simply are not told. God doesn't tell us everything. We couldn't understand everything if He tried. We know enough of Him to know that whatever the answer is, it is just and based on Love.

BUT, for all the rest of us, as Paul said, we "are without excuse". God has given us what we need to make a choice, and short of taking the choice away, God will do everything, HAS done everything, to encourage us to make the RIGHT choice.

Your basic stance/question here seems to be that God wants us to have free will, BUT, I might make the wrong choice. SO, there might be something WRONG/EVIL I have to do in order to get myself to make the right choice, or to give myself the knowledge to make the right choice.

This is both true and false. It's true in the sense that yes, sometimes people will do something evil, and it will bring them to the realization that they need God. Frequently the drunk hits bottom before they realize the mess they are in, and sometimes its AFTER the murderer has killed in a blind rage that they see the need for God to change what they are. You would think that God would not be willing to accept people who come to him only because they have gotten themselves into trouble so deep that they can't see any other way out, but God humbles himself so far that he is quite willing to be the last resort. He won't turn us away even then.

BUT, the problem is in the idea that someone HAD to do this evil thing, and they DIDN'T. That's the nature of Free Will. We COULD have chosen to do things the easy way, but we didn't, and God is willing to take us, even if we had to do things the HARD way.

So lets go back to your Bible stealing example. Lets make a fictional example with specifics. Mr. Pilfer HATES God. He was abused by a priest as a child, had religious parents who made his life miserable. He deliberately lives as immoral a life as he can to strike back a God. Mr. Pilfer makes his living as a thief. He deliberately targets the homes of religious people while they are off at church, as sort of a payback for all the suffering those pompous snobs caused him. His breaks in, steals anything of value, then spray paints horrible blasphemous things on the walls just to add to the sting. If he finds a Bible in the house, he desecrate it as much as possible and leaves the remains somewhere obvious.

BUT, one day, he is robbing the house of a church lady, and he notices her Bible sitting in a prominent place on the coffee table. This is no ordinary Bible. It's big, VERY big, and it's OLD. By looking at the dates in the front he can tell that it's well over 100 years old. Probably a collectors item. Normally he would tear it to pieces, scrawl foul language inside, and do other hideous things with it. BUT, this time, something makes him hesitate. It's VALUABLE. He should just take this one home and fence it. After all, he's trying to pay for that big screen plasma TV.

BUT, the fence won't take the Bible, it's too traceable. So Mr. Pilfer just leaves it in his room while he tries to find someone else who will purchase it. It sits there for weeks.

Mr. Pilfer is NOT happy. His whole life is consumed by hatred, but nothing he does ever seems to satisfy his thirst for revenge. Nothing he can buy ever seems to fill the empty spot in his soul. Then one night, he is tired, depressed, sick of life, and actually considering taking his own. He has already taken out his gun and placed it on the nightstand. He blames God for the way he feels. And there, right next to him, is this beautiful old Bible. He thinks about the fact that God has made him so miserable, BUT, he's never actually READ the Bible. He should go through it right now and find some of the particularly evil passages that lead that priest to abuse him, that lead his parents to be so horrible, and that led to his miserable life. He'll find some of those passages and then nail them to the wall. Then he'll blow his brains out and when his body is found, they will find the blood soaked pages and everyone will know exactly who's fault it is that his life was so messed up. It will be his last insult to God.

Mr. Pilfer starts reading, looking for good passages that show how bad religion is. And, at first, he does find a few, and pulls them out and nails them to the wall with glee. But as he reads, he starts going more and more pages before he finds one to rip out. He starts getting actually interested in the material. He starts wondering about some of his assumptions. He reads all night, and well into the next day. And, eventually, he meets Christ. And there he finds, not the harsh cruel dictator he was expecting, but another victim who was abused by so called "religious" people. And instead of blowing out his brains, Mr. Pilfer ends up on his knees, surrendering his life to the very one he has spent so much time hating.

Could God use evil acts to bring someone to him? Yes. Could God have even PROMPTED Mr. Pilfer to steal that Bible. Yes. He was not tempting Mr. Pilfer to sin, he was simply pushing Mr. Pilfer's sin in a more useful direction.

Was the sin NECESSARY in order to save Mr. Pilfer? No. Many people have gone through terrible hideous treatment and actually chosen to rise above it. Mr. Pilfer had a choice and he did not have to choose the path he did. But God was willing to work with him, even on that path. God NEVER does evil, but God CAN pull good out of evil.

Ge 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

[Jeff250]

I think you're misunderstanding the point that I'm trying to establish with the Adam-like example that I gave. At the current moment, I'm not really concerned with what happens to him if he died before he has the requisite knowledge to be saved. I'm really just trying to demonstrate that you do need an explicit knowledge in order to be saved, i.e. in order to accept the gift of salvation, you need to know that at least that it's there to accept and possibly even that you need it. So certain physical (or mental if you're of the mind != matter type) conditions would have to first be met before we can even talk about a person accepting salvation. Would you agree?

[Shoku]

My two cents:

Why should we follow God's values if they can be contrary to our and our loved one's ultimate good?

God's values are never contrary to our and our loved one's ultimate good.

The facts of human existence demonstrate this truth. Because of Adam's rebellion against God, mankind has been born into a world without God, corrupted and ruled by Satan. The Godly values that Adam rejected would have led mankind into paradise. The values he accepted have brought death and suffering to mankind and have created a world that is on the brink of destruction.

We are all in an imperfect state, alienated from God at birth.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
“Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.”Romans 5:12
“The wages sin pays is death.” Romans 6:23

Because of our sinful condition, God could eliminate us all and he would be justified in doing so because we all deserve death, which is all this imperfect life can give us in the end. But God is not ignorant of the fact that none of us willingly chose to be born into this imperfect state. So he made it possible for all mankind to be delivered from death. The only prerequisite is that we honor him and obey his commands and live up to the righteous principles mentioned in scripture; in other words, we prove to him that we genuinely want him to be our ruler, our advisor, our King and our God.

“Return to me,” he says, and I will repurchase you.” Isaiah 44:22
“Draw close to God and he will draw close to you.” James 4:8

This is what James meant when he said that faith without works is dead. To be a real, living faith, we must demonstrate it by the things we do. And yet, the reward we receive for our faith is due only to God's mercy – a kindness that we do not deserve because of our sinful state. By demonstrating our faith, God draws close and blesses us with his spirit and his favor. However, although God desires that all men attain salvation, few actually will.

“Broad and spaces is the road that leads to eternal destruction. Narrow and cramped is the road that leads to everlasting life.” Matthew 7:13,14

And the interesting thing about that narrow road is this: “few are the ones who find it.” Matthew 7:14 Finding implies searching, which is a positive activity with a goal. Only those who pursue this goal and succeed will find the reward of God's mercy.

So, “Be wise my son, and make my heart rejoice, so that I (God) may make a reply to him (Satan) who is taunting me.” Proverbs 27:11

[Samuel Dravis]

I've been in a debate of sorts recently that was about abortion. In this debate, my opponent claimed he was 'personally against it, but he is not able to judge for anyone else and could not enforce his moral view on them.' After that, I essentially pointed out that any kind of moral relativism is not so useful if that's the only thing he's going on to determine whether it is right or wrong to enforce his morals. While doing so, I found that there was no way he was going to say that slavery was a good thing in its time, that MLK was wrong to object to the majority's opinion, etc. He obviously had SOME absolute value system, but what? How is it that he decides what is good and what is not without it being a completely arbitrary decision?

I find that the only way to be consistent in a moral view is to base it on an absolute value system, and I cannot come up with some moral view better than what God's is (note this gets rid of his argument that he can't enforce his morality on anyone; if it's absolute it applies to everyone). Mind, it's not that I don't use relativism for a lot of things or even most things, I just don't think it can be applied to every situation, especially divisive issues such as abortion. People accuse me of being some sort of extremist, but I really don't think so; in fact, abortion is one of the very, very few things that I agree with conservatives on.

[Kilarin]

So certain physical (or mental if you're of the mind != matter type) conditions would have to first be met before we can even talk about a person accepting salvation. Would you agree?

I think I agree with you here. But with a caveat.
I would agree that you have to have a certain level of mental function in order to be able to accept salvation. My church speaks of "The age of accountability", as being that point where someones mental development has advanced far enough to allow them to make an independent choice for Christ. We do NOT attempt to fix that point because we feel that it is different for every individual.

The caveat is that people who, for whatever reason, are not "accountable", are not, as far as I can determine from scripture, lost. To give child specific examples:

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 1:15 (of John the Baptist) he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

2 Samuel 12:23 (David of his dead infant son) I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

All of these text, especially the last two, imply what seems obvious to me, that children who die before they are old enough to make a decision are not lost.

So yes, you have to be able to make a decision in order to accept salvation, but we have good biblical indications that those who never were accountable for their decisions are not necessarily lost.

in order to accept the gift of salvation, you need to know that at least that it's there to accept and possibly even that you need it.

I do not believe that you even have to know there is a God in order to accept Him and his offer. Jesus said:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[Jeff250]

I think I agree with you here. But with a caveat.

I still wasn't talking about any sort of age of accountibility, just potentially prerequisite conditions such as knowing that you're accepting the gift, knowing what the gift is, knowing that there is a gift, etc. (See below).

I do not believe that you even have to know there is a God in order to accept Him and his offer.

Explain how one can accept God if he doesn't know that there is a God. What's the minimum that one has to explicitely know before he can be saved? Does he have to know that there even is an offer? Could he be saved and not know it? Accidental salvation?

[Kilarin]

Could he be saved and not know it? Accidental salvation?

Yes. Take, for example, a person raised somewhere in a pagan land who had never heard of Christ. They know nothing of "salvation" as a Christian understands it. And yet, they saw that the world was divided into good and evil, and they aligned themselves with the side of good. Dante called these "Virtuous Pagans", and, being catholic, placed them in "limbo", which is the nicest spot in Hell.

Protestants are divided on the issue. Some churches think that everyone who doesn't directly confess Christ goes to hell, but the majority takes the view I believe to be in alignment with Christ's statement that he has "other sheep not of these pastures", and believe that these "virtuous pagans" will indeed find themselves in heaven. They will be quite surprised at first, but then rapidly move to "Oh, it was YOU all along!"

God isn't in the business of keeping people "out of heaven", he is trying to get everyone in who could possibly be happy there.

[Duper]

On the other hand, there are a lot of people that think that they are saved, but in truth are not.

[Shoku]

I do not believe that you even have to know there is a God in order to accept Him and his offer. Jesus said:

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Your deduction dosen't quite fit here.

Note that Jesus called these individuals "other sheep" and he said "they shall hear my voice." Compare this with Jesus' earlier statement at verse 14: "I am the fine sheperd, and I know my sheep and my sheep know me."

Although the sheep mentioned in verse 16 are in a different fold, they are still sheep, which indicates, based on what Christ said in verse 14, that they know who he is.

Some believe this is a referrence to gentiles. Some believe it is a reference to those who will accept Christ at a latter period of time, and not belong to the group called the "first fruits" mentioned at 1Corinthians 15:20, James 1:18, and Revelation 14:4. But whatever Jesus meant when he refered to other sheep, it is quite clear that the sheep know Jesus, regardless of what fold or group they are in.

This is in harmony with the sciptures I mentioned above that clearly state only those on the narrow road would find salvation.

Note also Jesus' earlier statement at John 10:1-9:

"'Most truly I say to you, He that does not enter into the sheepfold through the door but climbs up some other place, that one is a thief and a plunderer. But he that enters through the door is shepard of the sheep. The doorkeeper opens to this one, and the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has got all his own out, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. A stranger they will by no means follow but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.' Jesus spoke this comparison to them; but they did not know what the things meant that he was speaking to them.
"Therefore Jesus said again: 'Most truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All those who have come in place of me are thieves and plunderers; but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and he will go in and out and find pasturage.'"

So again, the sheep must follow Jesus if they are to be saved.

Note also the end of verse 16: the "other sheep" are to join with Jesus and become part of "one flock" with "one sheperd."

[Kilarin]

it is quite clear that the sheep know Jesus, regardless of what fold or group they are in.

But to know Christ, do you actually have to know his name?

Obviously Abraham will be saved, and yet did not DIRECTLY know Christ in his human incarnation.

But to go much deeper into the issue, are you saying that all of those who never heard Christs name because they lived in the wrong part of the world are doomed?

To clarify, I agree with you completely that everyone who is saved will be saved through Jesus. I'm just not convinced that there won't be any American Indians who died before 1492 in heaven.

[Duper]

I agree with you completely that everyone who is saved will be saved through Jesus.

Allow me to phrase this a bit differently. It is throught the sacrifice of Christ's crusifiction that we are saved. What some like to say "Christ's work on the cross".

I'm just not convinced that there won't be any American Indians who died before 1492 in heaven.

I think you will be surprised. God reveals himself to everyone. There have been ancient records found of an "Unknown God" speaking to peoples around the globe. It would take too long to describe all the instances. It's in a book called "Eternity in Thier Hearts". You can find it Here on Amazon.com

[Jeff250]

Yes. Take, for example, a person raised somewhere in a pagan land who had never heard of Christ. They know nothing of "salvation" as a Christian understands it. And yet, they saw that the world was divided into good and evil, and they aligned themselves with the side of good. Dante called these "Virtuous Pagans", and, being catholic, placed them in "limbo", which is the nicest spot in Hell.

So you're basically reducing the required knowledge of Christ for salvation to being just a required general knowledge of "good and evil" (and possibly other stuff) before a person can be saved?

[Kilarin]

So you're basically reducing the required knowledge of Christ for salvation to being just a required general knowledge of "good and evil" (and possibly other stuff) before a person can be saved?

I believe that this text:
Ro 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Specifically refers to people who never heard about Christ. It states that Nature and the Conscience are sufficient to convict us of sin and the need for repentance. The Native Americans who never heard of Christ will still have made a choice, and if they made the right one, they will be saved by Christs sacrifice made for them.

Gonna be outta touch for a week, so I won't be ignoring your reply. I'll just be ignoring EVERYBODY.

[Shoku]

To clarify, I agree with you completely that everyone who is saved will be saved through Jesus. I'm just not convinced that there won't be any American Indians who died before 1492 in heaven.

You fail to take one very important thing into account. One thing that most "Christians" today fail to notice. It is something that is mentioned throughout scripture, and was what hope revolved around for just about everyone who worshiped the God of Abraham prior to Christ's first coming. And it is still valid, still waiting to occur, still a central part of God's purpose, still reserved for the majority of everyone who ever lived. It is the RESURECTION of the dead.

This is another subject, so maybe I'll start a new thread, or maybe not. Let me know if you want to discuss it.

[CUDA]

PRE OR POST Trib.